Date of filing : 24.04.2008.

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT C.C. No.70 of 2011 Orders pronounced on: 31.10.2025 M/s.Cholayil Private Limited, No.8, J Block, 6^th Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102.

(Amended as per Order, dated 07.06.2023, in MP. No.53 of 2023) … Complainant Vs.

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., rep. by its Manager, AA-8, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

2.HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. By its Manager, 759, ITC Centre, Anna Salai, Chennai 6000 002. … Opp. Parties For Complainant : M/s.Ramasubramaniam Asso.

For Opp. Parties : M/s.King & Partridge.

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 28.08.2023 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. President .

–

After the original complainant/company viz., M/s.Dorcas Market Makers Private Limited, Chennai-102, came to be merged with the present complainant- M/s.Cholayil Private Limited; on the strength of orders, dated 07.06.2003, passed in MP No.53 of 2023, allowing amendment of cause title, the complaint came to be prosecuted by the latter-M/s.Cholayil, seeking a direction to the OPs/HDFC Bank to reverse a sum of Rs.41,68,163/- being the balance amount that the complainant/company is unable to recover from its employee and unauthorizedly debited from its account due to the negligence act of the Bank and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period when the amounts were unauthorizedly held by the Bank and to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakh for the loss suffered due to the Banks’ service deficiency.

2. It is the crux of the complaint that the complainant is a registered company engaged in the business of marketing medimix soaps and other consumer products, employing a labour force of approximately 270 persons and, for its banking requirements, the complainant had started an account with the OPs/Bank in the year 2002 and the said account continues to be in operation; that, during May/June 2006, the complainant noticed considerable variations in the utilisation of its banking limits and, upon verification of the account position, they found that a total of 22 cheques had been wrongly debited by the Bank in the account held by them and they immediately apprised the Bank of the fact that the said instruments had not been issued by them, indicating a probable misuse and requested that the matter be promptly examined; that, a letter, dated 15.06.2006, was addressed to the Bank seeking details of the cheques that had been debited from the complainant’s account and, upon inquiry, it was learnt from the Bank that the said cheques, though belonging to the company, bore forged signatures and had nevertheless been honoured and the Bank also furnished Xerox copies of the misused cheques and assured the complainant that they would look into the matter; that, subsequently, the complainant addressed a detailed letter , dated 16.08.2006, to the Bank enclosing particulars of the wrongful debits and once again requesting rectification of the discrepancies and, as no response was forthcoming, representatives of the complainant met the Bank’s officials personally and, during such course, assurances were given that the records would be verified and a reply provided and thereafter, a similar written response was received but no effective action followed; that, in the meanwhile, internal inquiries conducted by the complainant disclosed that, unlike their regular transaction pattern, which ordinarily averaged .

around Rs 50,000 per withdrawal, the forged cheques were issued for sums six to ten times higher and despite this conspicuous deviation from the usual pattern of operations, the Bank failed to take note of such irregularities and permitted withdrawals aggregating one crore rupees on the strength of forged instruments; that the careless a